The Chair entertained a motion to approve
the minutes. Christopher
Kroot moved to approve the minutes as written. Mike Smith seconded. The
Board
voted 13 in favor, none opposed. The motion carried. (NOTE: unless
otherwise
indicated the Chair abstains from voting)

3. Federal
Representation on the Board

The Chair moved item three to next
on the agenda. Mike Smith moved as follows “The
motion is to endorse proposed legislation which would add a federal
representative, who is also a resident of Maine, and who represents federal
agencies
which collaborate with other Maine
organizations to develop or use GIS data, to be nominated by the Board
via
majority vote, for a 3-year term.This
motion would also endorse removal of the Department of Administrative
and
Financial Services appointee since DAFS already has an appointee in the
CIO or
the CIO's designee.Finally, this motion
would provide a framework for removal of members not attending Board
meetings,
either three consecutive meetings or four meetings in any twelve-month
period.This legislation would be
proposed in the next legislative session."

Christopher Kroot seconded.

Q: Has the CIO been briefed about this
proposal? What about
the issue of the number of DAFS representatives on the Board?

A: Dick Thompson is aware of this and he
concurs. This is a
proposal mostly to get a federal representative on the Board. The
question of
how many DAFS people are on the Board can be dealt with later.

Q: What about the other proposed new
representatives on the
Board?

A: The e-mail discussion was rather chaotic
with no clear
consensus. The decision was made to limit this proposal.

Q: Three absences and you are out seems a
bit harsh. Will
medical or family emergencies be considered?

A: Of course. The object is to give us a
method to deal with
the problem.

Bruce Oswald began his presentation by
reviewing the schedule
of project deliverables. The projected date to complete the strategic
plan is
now November 10,
2008.
The project completion date is projected as November 28, 2008.

The remaining presentation is given in
outline form with
accompanying questions and comments.

>Topics to be covered

·Structural
Issues

·Gaps
and Solutions

· Data Needs, including “other” vector
data

·Other
items to be included in the strategic plan

>NSGIC Coordinating Criteria

1. A full time GIS coordinator and staff

2. Clearly defined authority and
responsibility for
coordination.

3. A relationship with the Chief Information
Officer ( CIO )

4. A political or executive champion is
involved in
coordination

5. A tie into national programs

6. An inter-governmental working environment
free of turf
wars

7. Sustainable funding mechanisms

8. Contracting authority and cost sharing
mechanisms

9. Statewide coordination efforts that can
be a conduit for
federal initiatives.

Q: What is NSGIC

A: National States Geographic Information
Council, an
organization designed to guide spatial information technology
nationwide.
Members include state GIS managers,representatives
from federal agencies, local government,
the private
sector, academia and other professional organizations.

>NSGIC Coordinating Criteria

A full-time paid coordinator position is
designated and has
the authority to implement the state’s business and strategic plans.

·Explanation:
Many states have created one or more full time positions to oversee
coordination of geospatial technologies. These individuals are responsible
for implementing the state’s business plan and are typically
assigned to the Governor’s office, Chief Information Officer,
Budget Dept. or the Technology Office. In some states these duties
fall on a volunteer and in others no one is willing to assume this
role. Having a full-time paid individual is advantageous and a
significant portion of their energy is channeled into on-going statewide
coordination council activities.

>Successful State Programs

KentuckyNew YorkIndianaOhioMassachusetts

OregonMarylandTexasMinnesotaUtah

IllinoisVirginiaNew JerseyVermontNew York

WisconsinNorth Carolina

>Successful State Programs (with
Statewide GIS
Coordination Offices)

KentuckyNew YorkIndianaOhioMassachusetts

OregonMarylandTexasMinnesotaUtah

IllinoisVirginiaNew JerseyVermontNew York

WisconsinNorth Carolina

Q: Does “state” mean including outside state
government?

A: Yes, state is meant in the general case.

Q: How are other state GIS programs funded?

A: Mostly by general funding I think but I
will look into
that.

Sidebar

A discussion ensued about the history of GIS
funding in Maine.
When the general fund appropriation
for the
Maine Office of GIS ( MEGIS ) was cut, certain state agencies funded
MEGIS by
subscriptions, then by negotiated Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) each
year. This
made MEGIS understandably focused on state government. Parts of the
original
legislation creating MEGIS were read out; it seemed that there was no
clearly
defined role outside of state government. In some opinions, this meant
that promotion
and policy always got left behind.

>How Do Most “Councils” Work?

·Policy makers

·Develop
standards

·Strategic
planners-set strategic priorities

·Establish
statewide direction

·Provide
input from their constituencies

·Assist
in obtaining and aligning funding.

>How Do MostState
GIS Offices Work?

·Respond
to state agency GIS needs

·Responsible
for statewide GIS

Clearinghouse
implements
council’s priorities

Annual conference

Develop &
update statewide
data

Training

Promote GIS,
partnerships, data
sharing across the state

Newsletters, list
servers, service centers, help desks

>What’s Missing in Maine?

·“Statewide”
Coordinator

·Recognizable
face

·Consistent
leadership

·An
Evangelist, someone who can dedicate time to travel across the state

It was immediately suggested that Funding should be added to what is ‘missing in Maine”. It was
also suggested that the Board
needs information on exactly how other states fund their GIS
operations. There
was additional discussion on funding, staffing and how to “implement
the
Implementer”.

>What to Build On?

· Geolibrary Board Achievements

· MEGIS

· MEGUG ( Maine GIS Users Group )

·StateUniversity
System

>Coordination Gaps – Data Sharing

· Inability to find data easily

· Difficulty in knowing when new data is posted
or other data is updated

· Difficulty in downloading or accessing data

· Difficulty in posting data

· Inability to easily get access to state and
local data

> Coordination
Gaps – Data
Development

· Provide updated imagery ( every 3-5 years )

· Provide statewide parcel data

· Develop one uniform roads – and addressing
– dataset

Q: At the municipal level, creating FGDC[1] metadata is a big barrier. How do we address that?

A: It’s difficult. No one has had the
resources to train or
assist them. The metadata creation function of the GeoPortal may help
with this
problem.

Q: Looking at the “data sharing gaps”, will
these be solved
with the GeoPortal?

A: Yes except perhaps for the last item.

Q: Does the GeoPortal have a reporting
function?

A: Not as such except that it becomes
obvious when metadata
& data are posted.

Q: How do we deal with periodic updates to
portal data?

A: The Board needs a policy on that.

Sidebar

There was a discussion once again of the
availability, or
lack thereof, of certain state agency data. It was said this has been a
continuing frustration for the Board. It was strongly suggested that a
master list
of GIS data be created listing agencies, contacts, availability,
updating, etc.
Noted in particular were restricted access to data created and
maintained by
Maine Revenue Service, Land Use Regulation Commission and the Maine
Natural
Areas Program.

> Coordination
Gaps – GIS
Training

· How can I find inexpensive GIS training?

· Where is training being given around the state
and where?

· Who can I contact for help?

· How do I start a GIS program for my town?

> Coordination
Gaps –
Coordination Activities

· Data development

· Application development

· Data sharing

· GIS project partnerships

· Training

· Provide access to lessons learned

These are due to a lack of good
communication. Possible
solutions could be better use of the list servers and websites.

> Coordination
Gaps – Software
is Too Expensive

· How can I find less expensive software?

· How can I share software

· Is there a better way to purchase software?

These are due to a general lack of capacity
but two
solutions are apparent. First, strengthen the Maine GIS Users Group to
the
extent that it can address these issues. Second provide sufficient web
based
services for municipalities ( and others ) so there is no need to buy
software
or special hardware. The second suggestion was well received; there was
some
discussion of web mapping services and how to get municipalities to use
them.

> Data Needs ( Including “Other” Vector
Data )

The “other” data refers to a list of
suggestions compiled
from the surveys and forums and which was available as a handout. ( see
appendix
A ). The list was briefly reviewed with comments pointing out certain
recurring
themes.

Bruce asked for a list of the Board’s top
data priorities.
Amid considerable discussion these developed as: #3 combined DOT/E911
roads
later, #4 high resolution elevation data, #5 conservation lands. ( #1
& #2
remain as orthoimagery and digital parcels respectively) These will
need to be
rectified with the existing priority list as given in the 2007 Annual
Report to
the legislature.

4. Demonstration of
Custom Geoportal Work

Christopher Kroot gave an overview of the
work.

1) Phase 1 : Design

2) Phase 2: Preliminary Programming

3) Phase 3: Preliminary Upload

· receive prioritized list of target organizations
from the Board

· contact organizations and establish a mutually
agreeable timeframe

· support the process of uploading metadata to
test site

· develop documentation supporting data upload
for other current and potential metadata producers

4) Quality Control
Preliminary
Upload Procedure and report back to the Board

Christopher asked
that the Board
members e-mail him lists of metadata they would like to see loaded.
This will
be done over the remaining summer season.

Training for those
using the
GeoPortal, presumably municipal officials and staff, will be conducted
at the 6
hubs of the University
of Maine System.
These
six constitute the Maine Geospatial Curriculum Consortium ( MGCP6).

Q: What if few or
none apply for
training?

A: We will be
proactive, asking
certain communities known to be active in GIS. Bar
Harbor
would be an example.

Matthew Blanchette, University
of Southern Maine RCG,
gave a short presentation on part of the application they have been
working on. This will be a function of the GeoPortal and will allow
users to upload shapefiles[2] for conversion to web mapping services. There are
two modes for uploading. Flash uploading works on multiple files directly
and requires a free plug-in[3]. Zip uploading works on zip files and requires
no additional software.

Q: Don’t users
have to submit
metadata first?

A: Yes, it has to
be approved
before they are allowed to upload data.

Q: These
shapefiles are going to
be then viewed on the portal right?

A: Very basically
the files will
be converted to a web mapping service which can viewed by going to the
GeoPortal. The uploaded data essentially becomes another data layer for
viewing.

The remaining
items on the agenda
were tabled to the next meeting.The
meeting adjourned at 12:30

Improve and maintain
NHD24 and make it the default hydro dataset for Maine.

Infrastructure

Latest information about
all kinds of infrastructure and cultural features from different public
agencies.

Infrastructure

New Data for Better Land
Use Planning & Water Quality/Quantity Management: Wells public
& private, Sewer & Septic Systems, Update USGS Streams and
watershed to accuracy needed to analyze impact of impervious surface
development on 2nd order stream watershed

Land
Cover

time series of land cover
data (classified in a consistent manner over time and with accuracy in
important categories of our state (forests)

Land
Cover

Updated and more detailed
land cover information (which I know isn't necessarily vector data, but
it could be).

Land records such as
transfers (deeds) are important. I also feel that the Multiple Listing
Service in Maine
should be a part of this portal. An "Open" MLS policy needs to be
adopted thereby providing current and accurate data to RE Brokers,
Appraisers an

Data available now seems
to be becoming more limited rather than more available. Continued
updates and coordination with state agencies and localities is most
important. Some state agencies aren't posting certain data within the
geolibrary. BIG PROBLEM!

State,
Local

Better access to state
data. Encourage widespread geocoding of all state data.

State,
Local

Ability to secure
information from State Agencies - like the location of lead poisoned
children by CT, the locations of DEP VRAP sites, and to know it is the
latest information.

State,
Local

Make state data ready to
use for local governments. Even when the data is available, I need to
hire a GIS professional to project it locally. Many local governments
have invested serious funding to develop local data which is now used
by the state and others

Make printing pictures
and maps from MGIS easier to find and much easier to print. With so
many other types of websites that make it easy to print FULL PAGE
pictures, why does it so many twist and turns to get to printing a
picture from MGIS? If you can g

Misc

none.

[1] Federal Geographic Data Committee –aninteragency committee that promotes the coordinated development,
use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial data on a national
basis.

[2]Shapefiles are
a simple format for storing spatial data.They can be used in all major GIS softwares.

[3]A program that
interacts with a host application to provide a specific function
on demand.